- This topic has 6 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 1 day ago by .
According to Fairfield Council replacing eroded soil from the creek bank (part of the common property) is not a s 106 matter (SSM Act – duty to maintain and repair).
Plans for the SP show the common property extends to the high tide mark. The bank is without question common property yet the Council seem to think the SSM Act has “no bearing” on this (erosion) issue.
Council say: “Firstly, importing fill onto a creek bank could be considered development under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, not maintenance. Accordingly, the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 has no bearing on this issue and an owner’s responsibility under these regulations.”
Manager Catchment Planning
13 July 2022
Is restoring the common property development?
1.5 Meaning of “development”
(1) For the purposes of this Act, development is any of the following—
(a) the use of land,
(b) the subdivision of land,
(c) the erection of a building,
(d) the carrying out of a work,
(e) the demolition of a building or work,
(f) any other act, matter or thing that may be controlled by an environmental planning instrument.
Funny but the EPA Act only uses the word “fill” once and that is in reference to filling a vacancy in the office of a member.
- This topic was modified 3 weeks, 6 days ago by .
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.